This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Hello, I've made some changes by taking away some sentences I felt were not neutral. Is the tone better? Let me know. Thanks.Psstpnoy07:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the founder of LibraryThing, a competitor. I have refrained from changing the following part:
Shelfari has also been criticized for falsely claiming to have been "the first social media site focussed on books". [7]
I feel that it might be better to contextualize this. I am the person cited, but my company is a competitor with them. While I criticized them for this, for spamming and for astroturfing--for which they apologized--and generally have a low opinion of their tactics, I don't think it's fair to say that they have been criticized without noting the source is hardly impartial.
I would either find someone impartial who said this, put something in about the partiality of the source or remove it.
I would love to see the Wikipedia community figure out who WAS the first site of this kind. It's not LibraryThing. I think one might start with Bibliophil.org or SingleFile (now defunct). It would make an interesting paragraph in the Social cataloging article.
I would not capitalize "Blog widget."
"Shelfari users build virtual bookshelves of the titles they own, love, or have read, and rate, review, and tag them." is awkward.
"Individuals are able to sign up for free and register an unlimited number of books." Does Shelfari allow organizations to do it? I think so, but I don't know. Certainly LibraryThing has a lot of churches and other small organizations, and I'm guessing Shelfari does too.
The desription of the widget with "1)" and "2)" isn't good prose.
Overall punctuation is placed in the UK manner, not the US manner favored by the Chicago Manual and etc.
The paragraph about spam should probably be roughly dated. At that point the entry has turned into a sort of informal history, with dates leading developments, so I think this should have the same format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectiodifficilior (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern about impartiality. Wikipedia's policies generally discourage use of self-published sources, with the exemption of those produced by established experts or by the subject of an article; this and the potential conflict of interest seemed to me enough reason to remove the "first site" criticism. If a similar criticism is made or reported by, say, a newspaper, then I'd be happy for it to be added back. -- EALacey (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some stylistic changes following your suggestions. Could you clarify your point about UK punctuation? If you're referring to punctuation outside quotation marks where it isn't part of the quotation, that's following Wikipedia's own manual of style. -- EALacey (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. This is the LibraryThing guy again. Clearly I can't edit this article, but I wanted to drop a line suggesting someone do it. The current version is too thin, IMHO, and the criticism section—which I think belongs—shouldn't be the only section! That's unfair, I think. There should be something on their features, including one or two sentences on their "shelf" feature—which they stress more than other sites. Lectiodifficilior (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree... the sum and total of Shelfari should not be the criticism it has received. There are upsides- of course there are upsides, otherwise the site would be dead- and these should be presented as well as the negative aspect. I'm not very fond of writing articles, but I do think I'm a pretty good copy-editor, and so if someone wrote another section I'd be willing to copy-edit it. Just drop me a line on my talk page and the next time I log on I'll do what I can. --Song (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the POV tag because the specific reasons it was added appear to have been addressed. If anyone still thinks there is a remaining POV issue, please insert a new tag with a new date and explain why here. If anyone thinks the existing POV issue was not addressed, please insert the old tag with the old date and explain why here. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
